Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: essential commodity act in Iqbal @ Aslam Umarbhai Taili vs State Of Gujarat on 8 September, 2021Matching Fragments
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs, "(A) xxx xxx xxx.
(B) YOUR Lordships be pleased to issue writ of C/SCA/12983/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2021 mandamus or any other appropriate, writ order or direction and be pleased to direct the detaining authority to place on record of this petition, the order & grounds of detention passed against the petitioner and further be pleased to quash and set aside order of detention passed against the petitioner under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 Act by respondent authorities in purported exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 Act at pre- execution stage as being illegal, invalid, null and void, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and competence, suffering from legal mala fides and violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR Lordships be pleased to stay the further operation, implementation and execution of the order of detention passed by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
4. Learned Senior Counsel has mainly contended that the provision of the Essential Commodities Act would not be applicable and, therefore, it is not open for the respondent - Detaining Authority to pass an order under the provision of the Act of 1980. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to Section 3 of the Act of 1980 and submitted that the said section empowers the Detaining Authority to pass an order of detention under certain circumstances. It is submitted that as per the aforesaid provision, if the person is dealing in any commodity, which is an essential commodity as defined in Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the activity of such person is in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community then, the C/SCA/12983/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2021 Detaining Authority is empowered to pass an order. It is submitted that bio-diesel is not an essential commodity and, therefore, the provision of Essential Commodities Act would not be applicable.
17. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the case of the petitioner is that five FIRs have been registered against him under the provision of the Essential Commodities Act as well as under the provision of the Indian Penal Code as the petitioner is dealing in the business of bio- C/SCA/12983/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2021 diesel. It is the case of the petitioner that the bio-diesel is not an essential commodity under the provision of the Essential Commodities Act and, therefore, the concerned respondent authority is not empowered to pass an order of detention under Section 3 of the Act of 1980. However, it is required to be noted at this stage that the petitioner has not filed any proceeding for quashing and setting aside those FIRs, which are filed against him, on the ground that the provision of the Essential Commodities Act would not be applicable to his case and, therefore, the said FIRs be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the interim order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the Bombay High Court, wherein the Bombay High Court has made certain prima facie observation, however, learned Counsel has failed to point out about the final order passed by the Bombay High Court in the said writ petition. Similarly, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the interim order dated 03.02.2020 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2857/2020, wherein in Paragraph No.2 of the said order, this C/SCA/12983/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2021 Court has recorded the submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner and, thereafter, directed the State Government to make its stand clear on the policy of bio-diesel, however, learned Counsel has failed to point out about the policy of the Government or the final order passed by this Court in the aforesaid petition.
27. Here in the present case, it is presumed by the petitioner that five different FIRs filed against him under the provision of the Essential C/SCA/12983/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2021 Commodities Act are required to be quashed and set aside as the provision of the Essential Commodities Act would not be attracted. Hence, the proposed order of detention, which is likely to be passed against the petitioner under the Act of 1980 on the basis of the said FIRs, is to be quashed and set aside. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid contention is misconceived. First of all, the petitioner has presumed that all the FIRs, which are filed against him, are not tenable and, therefore on the basis of the same, the order of detention cannot be passed against the petitioner. This Court is of the view that it is not open for this Court in the present petition to examine as to whether all five FIRs, which are filed against the petitioner, are in fact required to be quashed and set aside as the provision of the Essential Commodities Act are not applicable to the facts of the petitioner.